research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic books

[pgwq]

the rule of six for ladders - Chapter II of Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi?
I wrote an article at Hangzhou meeting 2016,that explained chapter II in detail.

You had already given your real name tucked away in the threads here, but it is good to have this confirmation. Thank you.

For the benefit of others, I think he is underselling himself. That paper (in Chinese) is massive, about 22 dense pages, and it is about kos as much as ladders. My understanding is that the portion about ladders was not specially new, and not controversial, but this was by far the most detailed and helpful exposition. The portion on kos, however, was entirely new and was a major new contribution. It delves into double kos, triple kos, seki-kos etc. This would be the only part relevant to the rule aficionado, I imagine.

In saying that, I am reflecting mainly the views of others that I solicited at the symposium, though at that point almost no-one had read the full paper. We had only heard, as I recall, a 15-minute slide presentation. I found it hard to follow myself, because the Dunhuang language is unusual and elliptic (in parts, it's almost in shopping-list note form, actually), but the author had helpfully put quite a few passages into modern Chinese.

Because of my personal interests, it was naturally the language that interested me most. In particular I found the discussion of the common-or-garden word 行 especially illuminating. It has variant pronunciations (xing or hang or heng, though different again in ancient Chinese), but I was already familiar with that. What was totally new to me though - and great fun - was a sentence that went something like "Confucian scholars say 权, military men say 奇, but go players say 行." The author showed how they were the same (which is actually quite mind-boggling and I'm not sure I entirely followed the argument). But this term (as he shows) is also relevant to the understanding of 路 and 道.

So, I would say the omens for the present contributions on counting are potentially very good if only we can get to see the full depth of the research behind it, rather than the perhaps misleading snippets here. However, at this stage, looking at it purely linguistically rather than through the prism of rules, I still have to wonder if it's an adventurous step too far. But I await developments with great interest.

Thank you.

[John Fairbairn]

Edit: Ing rules defined pass as a kind of move in the 1970s. In 1932 Yasunaga's rules (constitution) proposed ending the game with 3 passes, referred to as giving up the right to make a play: 終局、交互着手の権利を連続３回放棄せる場合。Is there anything earlier?

These citations and the Olmsted one refer to passes in theory, but even in practice there were instances well before 1977.

In 1942 Hashimoto Utaro went to Nanjing on a Japan-China Goodwill trip (who says the Americans are the only ones not to understand irony?) and his Chinese opponent on one game made a pass which, the Japanese record says, was taken as a resignation. It my be coincidence, but shortly after that, in 1943, Hashimoto played a game with Hayashi Yutaro in the Oteai which featured an unusual series of passes because of uncertainty over how to handle a 10,000-year ko.

Skip on a couple of decades and we find that the next occurrence of a pass in pro play is by .... Hashimoto Utaro. It was the last move of a finished game, so the point of recording the pass seems totally obscure to me, but it may just be that that first encounter with passes in 1942 stuck in Hashimoto's mind passing became almost like his party piece?

The first serious encounter with passes in very modern play, I think, was in 1999, in a Kansai Ki-in First Place game. After a ko capture by Black, both players passed. White then re-took the capture. The commentary said Black could have claimed the game for an illegal ko capture - the two passes apparently being ignored. (The same th9ing happened again later.) Apart from giving some insight into what a passs really means in practice (in Japan), this also implies an automatic loss for an illegal move has to be claimed, so is not really automatic. It also raises the question of what happens if the claim proves to be false. Hara kiri?

I know of only one game with a pass under Ing rules, but it was over the fairly trivial example of a final half-point ko that did not affect the result.

[RobertJasiek]

When I started go seriously in 1991, explicit passes in Western amateur go were as common as implicit passes ("Finished?") and have become the default. Therefore, passes in game practice must have been older, at least the 1980s (not only in New Zealand and Taiwan / Ing sponsored tournaments since 1974).

[pgwq]

Because of my personal interests, it was naturally the language that interested me most. In particular I found the discussion of the common-or-garden word 行 especially illuminating. It has variant pronunciations (xing or hang or heng, though different again in ancient Chinese), but I was already familiar with that. What was totally new to me though - and great fun - was a sentence that went something like "Confucian scholars say 权, military men say 奇, but go players say 行." The author showed how they were the same (which is actually quite mind-boggling and I'm not sure I entirely followed the argument). But this term (as he shows) is also relevant to the understanding of 路 and 道.

You are interested in the different pronunciation of "行"。This is very rare and valuable.

[pgwq]

zhaozy.png (70.83 KiB) Viewed 26087 times

zhaozy_3.png (314.33 KiB) Viewed 26080 times

zhaozy_2.png (220.31 KiB) Viewed 26087 times

back to: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 27#p261527

[pgwq]

"has to hand one own stone to the other side" is named "overflow(溢)" in Song Dynasty and more early. see part2 and 3 of article.

I suddently think this, because you talked more about "pass" before.

[Bill Spight]

zhaozy.png

zhaozy_3.png

Did you know that White could have tied the game?

[pgwq]

Did you know that White could have tied the game?

tu1.png (211.74 KiB) Viewed 26088 times

11x11 board:


It's not a tie game. White will wins 1 Lu.

I guess that Mr.Zhao want to make a tie game but it is too difficult.
first,he can not show any prisoners in these pictures.

second,because of the balance of the moves, and he had to add a black move labled ■ in picutre3(图3).
but he forgot to amend in the picture1(图1) and picture2（图2）.

I've checked the original version of Zhao's article.
very interesting!

[Bill Spight]

This is what I meant.

Goto move 229. Also see other variations after that.

[pgwq]

This is what I meant.

Goto move 229. Also see other variations after that.

Excellent! Both sides's players and the study of yours.
I'll try to use KataGo(ancient rules) to study this JinHuaWanTu(金花碗图).

[pgwq]

Go Seigen doesn't know it, because he hasn't read the Thirteen Chapters Classic in Lan Ke Jing ever.

Zhang Jing(张靖)'s texts:
打筹不得过三，淘子不限其数。
Gaining chips(打筹), prohibited exceeding three [moves at a time].
Picking up stones(淘子), unlimited quantity.

my comments:
It means:
Gaining chips(打筹), putting down three stones (limited to below 3) on the board at a time.
Picking up stone(s) which not alive forever from the board keep as opponent's prisoners , unlimited quantity.

Liu zhong fu(刘仲甫) annoted:
棊家许连下三子打筹，虽许用三，将杀则止。
Weiqi players（棊家） are allowed（许） to continuous put down(连下) three stones (三子) at a time to gain chips（打筹）,
Although（虽） putting down three stones(用三) are allowed（许）, if any group(s) on the board will be killed(将杀) , you must stop（止）.

More details as below:
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 56#p261556
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 76#p261576

[pgwq]

"CannonQi" and "last dame's benefit" problem.

I find that: before the times of Dunhuang, people had already angry with playing moves of dame.

see: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 31#p261631


And, part3 of the article is finished now.

[pgwq]

Why are thest stones prisoners and not living stones on the board?

Chen-zu-yuan believes that: these stones are living stones on the board.
Maybe, it is possible to use “living stones" to explain Dunhuang Classic. But, there is a difficult.

As we know, the word "chips" spread from the times of Dunhuang Classic to Song Dynasty.
Chips represent prisoners.
How Chen explain these words in Chapter VI of Dunhuang Classic: "the game on chips(论筹)" "getting chips(获筹)" and so on?
How Chen explain the operation of "stone overflow(溢)" or "both parties overflow(两溢)"?
If "living stones" is true, "full" is enough, no need to "overflow". That's what he can't justify.

However, it is easy to justify it by "Scoring Rules by Prisoners".

Now, we know the mean of "砲碁"(see viewtopic.php?p=261631#p261631),
and find that before the times of Dunhuang Classic, "even number moves then game over" & people had already angry with playing moves of dame.
Therefore, it also proved that there was no "counting living stones" in that era.

[pgwq]

research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic books(两本经典著作中的古代围棋规则的研究)
Chinese version Link: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/436456656